I thought he was referring to the number of people who actually voted being less than a million of 311 million that they agree yes with the poll "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Which I didn't think was a fair statement, thus added the phrase voted to his statement, making it more correct in my view.

Well someone has to say it- no, the 2nd does not give such rights. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill or Rights don't grant any rights, they affirm that such rights are innate, granted by the Creator, and that they "shall not be infringed". The Constitution and the Bill of Right are restrictions on government, not the individual, and they acknowledge that such rights as God-Given can't be taken away by a government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

-United States Declaration of Independence

I've never understood how our "leaders" and especially lawyers and judges who are supposedly schooled in law could screw that one up or why the subject even comes up for debate. It's basic civics and if you read any of the founding father's other writing on the matter, is crystal clear. * Similarly, they make no mention whatsoever of hunting or "sporting use" or any other retarded ideas that get passed off these days. It's very explicit what they feared and why they thought the way they do. To dispute otherwise is to not understand the concept of liberty (which I fear far too few do these days).

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms...The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments — that is, each and every free person.
A select militia defined as only the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the press.
If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-Stephen P. Holbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right

Well someone has to say it- no, the 2nd does not give such rights. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill or Rights don't grant any rights, they affirm that such rights are innate, granted by the Creator, and that they "shall not be infringed". The Constitution and the Bill of Right are restrictions on government, not the individual, and they acknowledge that such rights as God-Given can't be taken away by a government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

-United States Declaration of Independence

I've never understood how our "leaders" and especially lawyers and judges who are supposedly schooled in law could screw that one up or why the subject even comes up for debate. It's basic civics and if you read any of the founding father's other writing on the matter, is crystal clear. * Similarly, they make no mention whatsoever of hunting or "sporting use" or any other retarded ideas that get passed off these days. It's very explicit what they feared and why they thought the way they do. To dispute otherwise is to not understand the concept of liberty (which I fear far too few do these days).

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms...The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments — that is, each and every free person.
A select militia defined as only the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the press.
If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-Stephen P. Holbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right

Well someone has to say it- no, the 2nd does not give such rights. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill or Rights don't grant any rights, they affirm that such rights are innate, granted by the Creator, and that they "shall not be infringed". The Constitution and the Bill of Right are restrictions on government, not the individual, and they acknowledge that such rights as God-Given can't be taken away by a government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

-United States Declaration of Independence

I've never understood how our "leaders" and especially lawyers and judges who are supposedly schooled in law could screw that one up or why the subject even comes up for debate. It's basic civics and if you read any of the founding father's other writing on the matter, is crystal clear. * Similarly, they make no mention whatsoever of hunting or "sporting use" or any other retarded ideas that get passed off these days. It's very explicit what they feared and why they thought the way they do. To dispute otherwise is to not understand the concept of liberty (which I fear far too few do these days).

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms...The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments — that is, each and every free person.
A select militia defined as only the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the press.
If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

-Stephen P. Holbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right

This touched a nerve and I typed a huge coffee driven response. Lucky for me my computer kicked me off the internet.

So in short...
Don't like guns? Don't own one!Don't own guns and afraid of your neighbor that does? Don't use the government to limit my rights to owning one.Puts the government in a position to look real bad. You are the one that is afraid of my ownership,not the government. And if the government is afraid of my ownership? Then we have bigger problems and I suggest you get a gun.

Regardless if your interpret as give a person the right to arm themselves doesn't matter. What is important is you have a god given right to protect yourself from harm or dying...so if carrying a weapon does this, then there should be NO ONE accept criminals who would not agree with this. Those who are against firearms have never been a victim of a bad criminal who has a gun and is using it against them, or just isn't educated enough to use them properly.

But to answer the question in my opinion. Our forfathers wrote that into the constitution for one purpose and that is to defend ourselves just like I mentioned above. What did they use back then...firearms, nives, clubs...anything to defend themselves and this country.

I'm sure your not going to fend off a bad person who is holding a gun with your "bare arms", unless your Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan!